Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Alternative Fuel Standard Act. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the President's draft legislation to which he referred in his State of the Union.

Although I may have some questions with the particulars of the President's plan, he and I share the common goal of increasing domestic energy security without compromising environmental quality.

As the committee of principal jurisdiction, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has a long history of moving fuels legislation. While chairman, I successfully discharged legislation that served as the historic fuels title to the comprehensive energy bill. That renewable fuels plan was the product of years of hearings, negotiation, and debate. The President's initiative deserves the same amount of attention.

According to a Labor Department report this month, most of the country's inflation can be directly attributed to higher gas prices. The USDA's Economic Research Service concluded that high gas prices will increase food costs in 2007; the Service noted that the food consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2006 and will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent.

The Energy Information Administration's April 2007 Outlook noted that the higher prices are due to continued international tensions, the conversion to summer blends, and unanticipated refinery problems.

AAA found that the average national price for gasoline is $2.87 up from $2.55 just a month earlier. Yet those national high prices seem low compared to California. AAA of Northern California noted that the average price for gasoline is $3.41 in Oakland, $3.53 in San Francisco, and averages $3.34 statewide.

The bottom line--supply source instability and inadequate domestic infrastructure have and will continue to contribute to high prices and inflation unless Congress does something about it. The President's ambitious proposal seeks to alleviate those concerns by sourcing new supply domestically.

The proposal that I am introducing would amend the Clean Air Act's existing renewable fuels standard by diversifying the types of qualifying fuels and increasing the volumes. Qualifying alternative fuels will be expanded to include fuels derived from gas and coal, and hydrogen, among others.

Cellulosic biomass ethanol is a promising technology that could significantly increase fuel supplies without compromising the food and feed prices. I am proud to say that some of the foremost research in the field is being done in my own State of Oklahoma, including a team at the Noble Foundation. Their work is engineering high energy and perennial crops that can be grown across the country.

Similarly, coal-to-liquids fuels could be the greatest domestic energy resource of all time. I have been promoting the technology for years, particularly for defense aircraft, but now is the time to expand this super clean fuel for use across America.

The plan would replace the current RFS by requiring 10 billion gallons of alternative fuel to be used in 2010 and increasing to 35 billion gallons by 2018. The bill similarly builds upon the current RFS by requiring EPA to incorporate the newer qualifying fuels into the credit trading system.

I have been seeking to increase U.S. energy security for years. I am glad that the President has stepped up and taken this issue head-on. The proposal deserves careful and proper consideration. The American people require as much. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve U.S. domestic energy security while fully considering public health and welfare.

Mr. President, I am honored today to congratulate 19 girls from Oklahoma for receiving the highest youth award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. I would like to honor Jamie Andrews, Tiffany Marie Cathey, Anna Elizabeth Davis, Alonna Marie Dray, Bridget Gibbons, Ashley Goodman, Justinn N. Hamby, Molly Elizabeth Henry, Laura Hopkins, Beth Johnson, Grace E. Lewis, Pammy Mackiewicz, Sarah Pierce, Alexanne E. Schallner, Haley Taylor, Joy-Lee Stowe, Kimberly L. Watson, Kaitlyn Willit, and Alicia Koch.

Girl Scouts of the USA, an organization serving more than 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 25,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the beginning of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must fulfill four requirements: earn the Girl Scout Gold Leadership Award, earn the Girl Scout Gold Career Award, earn the Girl Scout Gold Become, Belong, Believe, Build Award, and design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award Project. They also have to complete a plan for fulfilling the requirements of the award and follow through with close cooperation between a community consultant and an adult Girl Scout volunteer.

The Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. In achieving this prestigious award these young women show their dedication and commitment to their families, community, the Girl Scouts, and their country. I am honored to congratulate these recipients of this award from the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I rise today to have proudly introduced a resolution designating April 8, 2007, as ``National Cushing's Syndrome Awareness Day.'' I have long been dedicated to quality health care and therefore seek to raise awareness of this debilitating disorder that affects an estimated 10 to 15 people per million.

I seek your help in raising awareness of Cushing's Syndrome, which is an endocrine or hormonal disorder caused by prolonged exposure of the body's tissue to high levels of the hormone cortisol. Though it can lead to death, Cushing's Syndrome often goes undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because the initial symptoms are shared with a number of milder ailments. These symptoms include, but are not limited to, abnormal weight gain, skin changes, fatigue, diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and osteoporosis.

Cushing's Syndrome can take a variety of forms. Normally, the hypothalamus, a part of the brain which is about the size of a small sugar cube, stimulates the pituitary gland, the adrenal glands, and then the kidneys, which release cortisol into the bloodstream. High levels of cortisol can result from overproducing cortisol or from taking glucocorticoid hormones, which are routinely prescribed for asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other inflammatory diseases.

Doctors can detect Cushing's Syndrome through a series of tests, often using x-rays to examine adrenal or pituitary glands to locate tumors. However, since awareness of the syndrome is low, doctors do not always run these tests, and patients do not know to ask for them. Therefore, treatment often comes later than it should for victims of Cushing's Syndrome. Potential treatments for Cushing's Syndrome include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, cortisol-inhibiting drugs, or reducing the dosage of glucocorticoid hormones.

The need for heightened awareness of Cushing's Syndrome was brought to my attention by constituents who suffer from this dangerous disease. For the sake of these individuals and for the benefit of sufferers in your own State and around the Nation, I ask you to join me in this effort to raise awareness of Cushing's Syndrome.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the debate will start with our side. I encourage all Members who wish to be heard on our side on any of these resolutions to come to the floor and be heard.

Let me share some thoughts. This is a rather awkward situation we find ourselves in because we are debating three resolutions concurrently. Frankly, one of the three I have not even seen yet, so it is very difficult to debate something you have never seen. But I do know from the past discussions the type of concerns people have, the differences between, quite frankly, the Republican side and the Democratic side. I know it is not right down party lines, but let me share some concerns I have and some thoughts I have.

We heard from several Senators who expressed their concern over our micromanaging the war from this body and from the body of the other side. Five hundred and thirty-five people cannot be Commanders in Chief. It seems as if that is what is happening. Also, I observe, and I am only speaking for myself, that this thing has become highly politicized. When the war first started,

the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was the media trying to make us believe that is what it was all about, but that isn't what it was all about.

I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during that time, both before and after 9/11, and I observed what was going on. I observed what was going on in Iraq for a long period of time. I had the honor back in 1991 of going to Kuwait on what they called at that time the ``First Freedom Flight.'' There were Democrats and Republicans on that flight. We were the first ones to land in Kuwait. The Iraqis didn't even know the war was over at that time, and the oilfields were burning in Kuwait. I remember Tony Coelho was one of the Democrats who was on the trip, and Alexandria Hague was one of the Republicans on the trip.

He also had the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States and his daughter on the trip, going back for the first time to Kuwait to see what damage was done by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait City. I remember so well--I don't recall the age of the daughter; maybe she was about 8 years old. I remember so well that when we landed, the oil fields were burning, Iraqis were still fighting, not knowing there had been an agreement and fires should have ceased by that time. They were still shooting at each other. When it calmed down, we went to their home.

Keep in mind the Ambassador to the United States from Kuwait was of nobility and he had a daughter with women. They had a mansion on the Persian Gulf, a beautiful place. We got there in time to see that their house had been used as one of the headquarters of Saddam Hussein. His young daughter wanted to see her bedroom, her stuffed animals and things girls want to see. We found out her room had been used for a torture chamber. There were body parts stuck to the walls, human hair and hands, where the torturing had been taking place.

I think sometimes people forget about how bad this guy was. We hear a lot about Adolf Hitler, and this guy was certainly the worst since the brutality of Auschwitz and Hitler and, of course, the Holocaust. If you had been there and looked down and seen the bodies in the open graves, if you heard the testimony from others whose daughters could not get married because they could not have weddings on the streets of Baghdad because, if they did, people would come in, the Iraqis, and Saddam Hussein's sons would come in and mob everybody and they would kill people and take the pretty girls and rape them and bury them alive. These atrocities that took place were inconceivable to people.

You don't hear about this in the media. They say they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, you know, that is a moot point. There were weapons of mass destruction because they used weapons of mass destruction. They used them in the northern parts of Iraq. Saddam Hussein brutally, painfully murdered his own people, and the types of gases used in these weapons of mass destruction were the most painful kind that would torture people to death, burn them from the inside out. All the time this was happening, we heard testimonials about how Saddam Hussein was treating his people he thought perhaps were his enemies and didn't follow him after the war in 1991, and how they would put people to death, torture them, and drop them into vats of oil. The victims would be praying that they would put them in head first because their life would be over sooner. It was the same with the massive machines-- like what we call shredders in this country--where they would shred the live bodies of these individuals. They used the most brutal types of torture imaginable.

I thought once they get Saddam Hussein and once he is disposed of and is dead, people will realize this monster is not coming back. Unfortunately, there are other monsters who would take up the mantle. These things have gone undiscussed, unnoticed. Even if there had not been weapons of mass destruction--which there were, because they used them, either chemical or biological, which is just as cruel as nuclear, and effective, and it kills many people. Even if that had not been the case, America could not stand by and watch that type of thing happening.

I have had the honor of going back more times than any other Member of the Senate. I will be going next week. It will be my 13th trip to the area of responsibility in Iraq. Each time I come back, after seeing the progress that is being made, I read the newspapers, the press accounts, and there is no relationship between reality and the press accounts we get.

I had the honor of being in Fallujah during a couple of the elections. The Iraqi security forces--people are not aware of this, but they allowed them to vote a day in advance of the normal voting that took place. I was purposely at a couple of these elections in Fallujah because that was where the problems were supposed to exist. That is where our marines were. They conducted door to door and they did incredible and great work at that time. The Iraqi security forces were the first to go down and vote. I remember one night having them come back and talk about the threats that had been made on their lives. Some were shot during the process. They were willing to risk their lives to vote and then to help the people vote the next day. The next day, the other Iraqis came to vote. We all heard about the fingerprinting and holding up with pride their stained finger, which would be a death sentence on individuals. In this country, when such a small percentage of the people vote, and we look at those who are willing to risk their lives, I think how dear that privilege is and how we do not appreciate it as we should.

Anyway, they voted and, of course, they knew when they were going to vote, they would be in harm's way, and many were shot. There are heroic stories of Iraqis going to vote where they would lay down their lives and get in the line of fire to save somebody else. So these were experiences that we had, the real reasons for being there.

As we approach these resolutions--I see my friend from Missouri is here and I will soon yield to him whatever time he asks. As we discuss the resolutions, I want people to keep in mind the one thing those of us who believe the generals are more capable of running this war than are the individuals in this body, the 535 Members of the House and Senate--and of the 535, many of them want to be Commander in Chief; many are running. The generals make these decisions.

At this time, I ask my friend from Missouri how much time he wishes.

I yield 15 minutes to Senator Bond.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. A lot of people don't know it, but his family has made a personal sacrifice in their efforts in this war. We appreciate that very much. The Senator from Missouri outlined the consequences of surrender in a very articulate way.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum calls during the debate on the Iraq resolutions be equally divided.

Mr. President, I see no speakers on the other side, so I will elaborate on my remarks. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Missouri talked about specifically what would be the consequences of timelines or withdrawal. I can speak from personal experience, having spent time in Iraq. As I mentioned before, I plan to take my 13th trip to AOR in a couple of weeks. I believe what is not understood by people who are debating these resolutions is some of the good things about the Iraqi security forces.

I had the honor of being in Iraq when some of the new leadership took office. I remember Dr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser, and Dr. Jassim--I believe he was the Minister of Defense at that time-- they articulated in a very effective way that most of the differences between the two major factors over there were Western concepts, were Western ideas. It appeared to me that was the case.

As we debate these resolutions, we need to remember how we got in there in the first place. Remember what happened prior to 1991, remember the monstrous commissions that were made by Saddam Hussein and the number of people, the volumes of people who died tragic, painful deaths.

As far as the Iraqi security forces are concerned, it is pretty obvious to me that these individuals want to be in charge. I get the idea, when I listen to some of the people on the other side, that the Iraqi security forces somehow are inferior, somehow they don't have the knowledge and the capability, the potential to become great fighters. Yet when I talk with them, they are the ones who are anxious to get themselves in a position where they are going to be carrying the load for us.

The whole idea of the embedded training is that we put our people in

the rear to advise the Iraqis on what to do and to train them while they are actually embedded and fighting with them. This has worked very effectively. It has been effective.

I happened to be there at a time when in one of the training areas for Iraqi security forces, there was an explosion. Some 40 were killed.

What the people over here don't understand is the commitment the Iraqis have to their own security. It happens that 40 families of those who were killed in this blast all supplied another member of their family to go in and carry the load for the deceased trainee.

These individuals are committed. They are as anxious as we are to get to the point where they have the capability of offering the security against the terrorists. From time to time, they have gotten that way. There was a time when the entire western one-third of Baghdad was under security control by the Iraqis themselves. They were just not in a position to sustain that control.

We saw the commitment the Iraqis had in Fallujah, when a general who had been the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein--this guy hated Americans; he was a brigade commander for Saddam Hussein, until we went into Fallujah with our Marines and they started the embedded training, the embedded training referred to by my friend from Missouri. It was so successful and they enjoyed each other so much that this man, this general, his name is Mahdi, he looked me in the eyes and said: I hated Americans before all this happened. I certainly hated the Marines. When they came in and started embedded training, I learned to love them so much that when they rotated out, we all got together and we cried.

This is the commitment the Iraqis have. When you get into one of the helicopters and go from place to place, maybe 50 feet off the ground, and you see the commitment of these individuals in the small towns and the kids who are down there--a lot of times the people who are supporting our troops send over candy, cookies, and this type of thing don't realize that when our troops get them, they normally repackage them, and then as they are in these helicopters going across the triangle and other places, you can see the little Iraqi kids out there waving American flags and our troops are throwing them candy and cookies. This is the type of relationship we don't see in this country.

Mr. President, while we are calling to make sure that some of them get down to the floor from both sides, let me suggest the absence of a quorum.

I wish to inquire how much time we have remaining on our side.

Fine. We are next going to hear from the Senator from South Carolina. I wish to say, after the conclusion of the remarks, I am going to be trying to line up, by unanimous consent, several speakers. It is my understanding Senator Byrd wants to come down and speak. But between the next speaker and Senator Byrd, we are going to try to get some lined up for a period of time. That will be our intention.

First of all, let me thank the Senator from South Carolina, who has been steadfast all the way through this, and who has made such great contributions. In addition to what he said, I think it is worth observing that this is working.

In this morning's Washington Post, there is an article about the successes that are taking place. The top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the number of sectarian killings has dropped since the operation began in mid-February.

Then on the other side, GEN Qassim al-Mousawi, who is the Iraqi military spokesman, also offered an upbeat assessment of the Baghdad security plan and how well it is working now. So I think, frankly, this is sooner than I thought we would be getting some positive results.

Let me also make one observation before going on to the next speakers. That is, after receiving rather late the resolution by Senator Murray, 107, in reading it, unless I misread it, it appears to me she is outlining some things that are pretty consistent with what is in the Gregg resolution. So I do not know--with the three resolutions we have--the order. That is going to be determined, but right now we are not sure of it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes, followed by Senator Ensign for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Tester for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Kyl for 7 minutes, then any intervening Democrat, to be followed by Republican Senators Brownback, Warner, and Vitter for 7 minutes each.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before the Senator leaves, as it is right now, we have 10 minutes left on this side. There is 1 hour left on the Senator's side. We want very much to get some speakers down here, if we could. I understand we are trying to reserve 20 minutes for leadership time and 10 minutes on each side. If the Senator has speakers, this would be a good time to have them down here.

Madam President, rather than to speak myself, since there is going to be equal time coming off for both sides until a speaker gets down here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the last quorum call time be taken from the Democrats' time, and that future quorums come from the Democrat side.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, it is my understanding on this side we have 18 minutes. I am going to reserve 10 minutes for leadership time. That leaves 8 minutes I yield to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

Madam President, I understand we have 10 minutes. I wish to retain the remainder of our time.

Madam President, ironically, I agree with the Senator from Washington, although I disagree with the characterization of this resolution.

First of all, the resolution does essentially the same thing the Gregg resolution does. No. 1, the Gregg resolution uses the language that ``Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field.'' That is exactly the same language that is in the Murray resolution: ``Congress should not take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces.''

The Gregg resolution talks about article II, section 2, of the Constitution, in terms of the President's constitutional powers, and article I, section 8 of the power of Congress; and the Murray resolution does essentially the same thing, except it doesn't cite it. It merely says Congress and the President should continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities.

So I am going to vote for the Murray resolution and vote for the Gregg resolution. I don't see any difference in them. I think we are supporting the President, and this is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly reintroduce the Child Medication Safety Act, a bill to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend a school.

Parents today face many challenges when raising their children, one of which is ensuring that their children receive the best education possible. My views on education come from a somewhat unique perspective in that my wife, Kay, was a teacher at Edison High School in Tulsa for many years and now both of our daughters are teachers. I can assure you that I am one of the strongest supporters of quality education. However, it has come to my attention that schools have been acting as physicians or psychologists by strongly suggesting that children with behavioral problems be put immediately on some form of psychotropic drugs. Schools and teachers are not equipped to make this diagnosis and should not make it mandatory for the student to continue attending the school. This is clearly beyond their area of expertise. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to ensure that parents are not required by school personnel to medicate their children.

The Child Medication Safety Act requires, as a condition of receiving funds from the Department of Education, that States develop and implement polices and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending the school. It should be noted that this bill does not prevent teachers or other school personnel from sharing with parents or guardians classroom-based observations regarding a student's academic performance or regarding the need for evaluation for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: (1) the variation among States in the definition of psychotropic medication as used in public education, (2) the prescription rates of medication used in public schools to treat children with attention deficit disorder and other such disorders, 3) which medications listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being prescribed to such children, and 4) which medications not listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being used to treat these children and their properties and effects. This GAO report is due no later than one year after the enactment of this Act.

I believe this is an extremely important bill that protects the rights of our children against improper intrusion regarding health issues by those not qualified. If a parent or guardian believes their child is in need of medication, then they have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. Please join us in support of this legislation that protects the freedoms of our children.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Capital Gains Inflation Relief Act of 2007. The taxation of inflation is one of the most unjust practices of the tax code. This simple improvement will not only enhance the basic fairness and efficiency of the tax code, but will also immediately increase the net return on capital investment.

Under current law, a taxable capital gain occurs whenever a capital asset is sold at a price higher than the original purchase price. However, the timing of capital gains taxation sets it apart from other types of income. While wages are generally taxed on a yearly basis, the taxation on capital assets occurs at the time the capital asset holder chooses to sell his asset and realize

his gains. The gains on capital assets accrue over the course of the asset's life, which is usually many years. This is generally favorable to the capital asset holder, because he can defer taxation on his gains to a future year. This tax deferral is often cited as the primary reason for holding assets long term.

However, the value of tax deferral is often times overstated because current tax policy taxes the capital asset holder not only on real gains, but also on gains due to inflation. This creates a situation that is patently unfair to the American taxpayer. For example, an American who purchased a share of stock for $10 in 1950 and sold it for twice that amount today would be subject to capital gains taxes on the nominal gain of $10, though the transaction was a clear loss when one accounts for inflation. Why should an American taxpayer, who invested in a capital asset in his youth, be forced to pay capital gains taxes, on what can only be viewed as a loss, in his later years? In spite of all our efforts to curb inflation, it will remain a fact of life. This does not mean we should tax hard-working Americans with long-term goals on gains that are due to inflation, gains that they will never actually realize.

Without an inflation index, the tax code incentivizes short-term speculation and discourages long-term capital investment. The current turmoil in the subprime lending market is an example that demonstrates the perils of emphasizing short-term speculation over long-term capital investment. Though inflation has remained relatively modest recently, there is no guarantee of future stability. Inflation indexing would instantly increase the net return on capital investment and consequently encourage more of it. Inflation indexing would also restore core principles of sound tax policy such as ``horizontal equity,'' wherein two taxpayers in identical situations are treated identically by the tax system. Indexing capital gains would improve the basic fairness of the tax code with only a minor increase in administrative costs and a single step of simple multiplication for taxpayer compliance.

The need for indexing is clear. It would help average Americans and improve tax policy by enhancing both the basic fairness and the pro- growth incentive of the tax code. The merits of the capital gains tax are themselves debatable, but if we are to tax capital gains let us make sure they are taxed fairly. Please join with me in supporting this legislation to free the American taxpayer from the unfairness of the current tax policy.

Mr. President, the independent producers of oil and gas are the backbone of our domestic supply of energy. They have played and continue to play a critical role in meeting our domestic needs, especially as the big oil companies' focus mainly offshore. In fact, independents develop 90 percent of our Nation's wells. According to the Department of Energy, independent producers supply 68 percent of American oil production and 82 percent of overall American natural gas.

Therefore, I rise today to introduce legislation that eliminates the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal wells; wells producing 15 barrels of day and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of natural gas.

Under current law, the percentage depletion method is limited to only independent producers and royalty owners. It is a form of cost recovery for capital initially invested toward production of oil and gas wells. Generally, the percentage depletion rate is 15 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from an oil and gas producing property and is limited to a daily average of 1,000 barrels of oil or 6,000 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. However, under the net income limitation, percentage depletion is limited to 100 percent of the net income from an individual property. In the case of marginal wells, where total deductions often do exceed this net-income, this limitation discourages producers from investing in the continued production from marginal wells.

As a result Congress has suspended the net-income limitation for 1998 through 2005; and again for 2006 and 2007, with the passage of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, H.R. 6111.

My bill would simply clarify the policy by doing away with the taxable net income limitation altogether.

In my own State of Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop operations, producing the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85 percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells.

Because marginal wells supply such a significant amount of our oil and gas, it is vital we keep them in operation. According to the Energy Department, between 1994 and 2003, we lost 110 million barrels of crude oil due to plugged marginal wells. Thus, when we lose marginal wells, we become more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, at a time when virtually all agree that U.S. policies should encourage reliance upon domestic sources. Furthermore, we lose domestic jobs to foreign nations.

My bill would allow independents the necessary capital to continue to produce from these existing marginal wells--which is critical to the Nation's overall energy security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Tom Coburn, to proudly reintroduce the Child Medication Safety Act, a bill to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or psychotropic drug in order to attend a school.

Parents today face many challenges when raising their children, one of which is ensuring that their children receive the best education possible. My views on education come from a somewhat unique perspective in that my wife, Kay, was a teacher at Edison High School in Tulsa for many years and now both of our daughters are teachers. I can assure you that I am one of the strongest supporters of quality education. However, it has come to my attention that schools have been acting as physicians or psychologists by strongly suggesting that children with behavioral problems be put immediately on some form of psychotropic drugs. Schools and teachers are not equipped to make this diagnosis and should not make it mandatory for the student to continue attending the school. This is clearly beyond their area of expertise. Therefore, I am introducing this legislation to ensure that parents are not required by school personnel to medicate their children.

The Child Medication Safety Act requires, as a condition of receiving funds from the Department of Education, that States develop and implement polices and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription as a condition of attending the school. It should be noted that this bill does not prevent teachers or other school personnel from sharing with parents or guardians classroom-based observations regarding a student's academic performance or regarding the need for evaluation for special education. Additionally, this bill calls for a study by the Comptroller General of the United States reviewing: (1) the variation among States in the definition of psychotropic medication as used in public education, (2) the prescription rates of medication used in public schools to treat children with attention deficit disorder and other such disorders, 3) which medications listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being prescribed to such children, and 4) which medications not listed under the Controlled Substances Act are being used to treat these children and their properties and effects. This GAO report is due no later than one year after the enactment of this Act.

I believe this is an extremely important bill that protects the rights of our children against improper intrusion regarding health issues by those not qualified. If a parent or guardian believes their child is in need of medication, then they have the right to make that decision and consult with a licensed medical practitioner who is qualified to prescribe an appropriate drug. Please join us in support of this legislation that protects the freedoms of our children.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Capital Gains Inflation Relief Act of 2007. The taxation of inflation is one of the most unjust practices of the tax code. This simple improvement will not only enhance the basic fairness and efficiency of the tax code, but will also immediately increase the net return on capital investment.

Under current law, a taxable capital gain occurs whenever a capital asset is sold at a price higher than the original purchase price. However, the timing of capital gains taxation sets it apart from other types of income. While wages are generally taxed on a yearly basis, the taxation on capital assets occurs at the time the capital asset holder chooses to sell his asset and realize

his gains. The gains on capital assets accrue over the course of the asset's life, which is usually many years. This is generally favorable to the capital asset holder, because he can defer taxation on his gains to a future year. This tax deferral is often cited as the primary reason for holding assets long term.

However, the value of tax deferral is often times overstated because current tax policy taxes the capital asset holder not only on real gains, but also on gains due to inflation. This creates a situation that is patently unfair to the American taxpayer. For example, an American who purchased a share of stock for $10 in 1950 and sold it for twice that amount today would be subject to capital gains taxes on the nominal gain of $10, though the transaction was a clear loss when one accounts for inflation. Why should an American taxpayer, who invested in a capital asset in his youth, be forced to pay capital gains taxes, on what can only be viewed as a loss, in his later years? In spite of all our efforts to curb inflation, it will remain a fact of life. This does not mean we should tax hard-working Americans with long-term goals on gains that are due to inflation, gains that they will never actually realize.

Without an inflation index, the tax code incentivizes short-term speculation and discourages long-term capital investment. The current turmoil in the subprime lending market is an example that demonstrates the perils of emphasizing short-term speculation over long-term capital investment. Though inflation has remained relatively modest recently, there is no guarantee of future stability. Inflation indexing would instantly increase the net return on capital investment and consequently encourage more of it. Inflation indexing would also restore core principles of sound tax policy such as ``horizontal equity,'' wherein two taxpayers in identical situations are treated identically by the tax system. Indexing capital gains would improve the basic fairness of the tax code with only a minor increase in administrative costs and a single step of simple multiplication for taxpayer compliance.

The need for indexing is clear. It would help average Americans and improve tax policy by enhancing both the basic fairness and the pro- growth incentive of the tax code. The merits of the capital gains tax are themselves debatable, but if we are to tax capital gains let us make sure they are taxed fairly. Please join with me in supporting this legislation to free the American taxpayer from the unfairness of the current tax policy.

Mr. President, the independent producers of oil and gas are the backbone of our domestic supply of energy. They have played and continue to play a critical role in meeting our domestic needs, especially as the big oil companies' focus mainly offshore. In fact, independents develop 90 percent of our Nation's wells. According to the Department of Energy, independent producers supply 68 percent of American oil production and 82 percent of overall American natural gas.

Therefore, I rise today to introduce legislation that eliminates the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal wells; wells producing 15 barrels of day and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of natural gas.

Under current law, the percentage depletion method is limited to only independent producers and royalty owners. It is a form of cost recovery for capital initially invested toward production of oil and gas wells. Generally, the percentage depletion rate is 15 percent of the taxpayer's gross income from an oil and gas producing property and is limited to a daily average of 1,000 barrels of oil or 6,000 thousand cubic feet of natural gas. However, under the net income limitation, percentage depletion is limited to 100 percent of the net income from an individual property. In the case of marginal wells, where total deductions often do exceed this net-income, this limitation discourages producers from investing in the continued production from marginal wells.

As a result Congress has suspended the net-income limitation for 1998 through 2005; and again for 2006 and 2007, with the passage of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, H.R. 6111.

My bill would simply clarify the policy by doing away with the taxable net income limitation altogether.

In my own State of Oklahoma, it is the small independents, basically mom-and-pop operations, producing the majority of oil and natural gas, with 85 percent of Oklahoma's oil coming from marginal wells.

Because marginal wells supply such a significant amount of our oil and gas, it is vital we keep them in operation. According to the Energy Department, between 1994 and 2003, we lost 110 million barrels of crude oil due to plugged marginal wells. Thus, when we lose marginal wells, we become more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, at a time when virtually all agree that U.S. policies should encourage reliance upon domestic sources. Furthermore, we lose domestic jobs to foreign nations.

My bill would allow independents the necessary capital to continue to produce from these existing marginal wells--which is critical to the Nation's overall energy security. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I wish to speak to my amendment No. 381 that seeks to improve the U.S.'s national security through increasing our ability to fuel our country from domestic resources.

Americans are familiar with the violence, terrorism, and instability in the Middle East. But forms of that instability are spreading around the world, including to our own backyard.

This chart by the Energy Information Agency summarizes some of the energy security hot spots around the world. Since September 2005 when this chart was made, U.S. security interests have gotten even worse in some regions. On February 26, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez nationalized U.S. oil interests--the motivation for the Soviet-style move was to improve Venezuelan strategic interests.

Adding insult to injury, while signing an agreement allowing Chinese companies to explore in Venezuela, Mr. Chavez stated that, ``We have been producing and exporting oil for more than 100 years but they have been years of dependence on the United States. Now we are free and we make our resources available to the great country of China.''

China has recognized that energy is a true security interest and has inked deals with Russia and OPEC, along with Castro's Cuba.

The fact is that our national security is linked with our energy security. Yet even if we were to stop importing oil from the Middle East tomorrow our national security interests would still be at risk.

And we are not alone.

European Union countries as a whole import 50 percent of their energy needs, a figure expected to rise to 70 percent by 2030. A significant and increasing volume of those imports come from Russia.

In December 2005, Russia decided to turn off the gas to Ukraine, affecting imports into Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland, and Slovakia. A similar dispute between Russia and Belarus affected Germany's oil imports.

According to the Congressional Research Service, global energy demand is expected to rise by nearly 60 percent over the next 20 years.

In order to meet motorists' demands today and tomorrow and the global struggle for energy security, I am introducing the Domestic Fuels Security Act.

The Domestic Fuels Security Act lays out a coordinated plan to increase the production of critical clean transportation fuels for today and tomorrow in four significant ways.

First, the amendment provides a coordinated process whereby the Federal Government--at the option of a Governor and in consultation with local governments--would be required to assist the State in the permitting process for domestic fuels facilities. These would include coal-to-liquids plants, modern refineries, and biorefineries. And this voluntary, coordinated, from-the-grassroots-up process would do so without waiving any environmental law.

Second, the amendment would look to the future and conduct a full environmental review of fuel derived from coal.

The U.S. has 27 percent of the world's coal supply--the largest in the world--nearly 250 billion tons of recoverable reserves. It is critical that we learn to use what we have and do so in an environmentally responsible way.

Third, the amendment seeks to spur a viable coal-to-liquids industry in a comprehensive way. In order for a new fuels industry--to develop three components are required--upfront costs to design and build, a site to do it, and a market to sell the product.

The amendment provides loan guarantees and loans for the startup costs. It provides incentives to some of the most economically distressed communities--Indian tribes and those affected by BRAC--to consider locating a facility in their backyard through Economic Development Administration grants. Last, the amendment requires the Department of Defense to study the national security benefits of having a domestic coal-to-liquids, CTL, fuels industry to comprehensively assess a new market.

I have to give credit to my colleagues, Senators Bunning, Obama, Lugar, Pryor, Murkowski, Bond, Thomas, Craig, Martinez, Enzi, and Landrieu, who together had introduced a bill with similar language. I am hopeful that they will join me in moving this amendment.

We can all agree that increasing domestic energy security is a vital objective. Yet it also provides good jobs.

According to the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, a CTL plant, with an output of 10,000 barrels per day, can support 200 direct jobs onsite, at least 150 jobs at the supporting coal mine, and 2,800 indirect jobs throughout the region. During construction, another 1,500 temporary jobs will be created.

Fourth, cellulosic biomass ethanol--renewable fuel from energy crops like switchgrass--is a popular concept but faces financial barriers. Recently, the Federal Government has released some initial money to help develop the industry, but more could be done.

In order to entice private sector investment, it is important for the collective fuels industry and motorists to know what our renewable resource base is, as well as traditional fuels. This amendment requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to convene a task force to assess how we should modernize our reserves--both traditional and renewable for cellulosic biomass ethanol feedstocks.

Energy security, job security, American security--please join me in passing the Domestic Fuels Security Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the chart to which I referred.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, what is the regular order?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, there is a vote coming up on the resolution. We already had one vote on a cloture motion. I have to say publicly one more time the reason I have so vigorously opposed this whole concept, and it is because in a very partisan way, in a very partisan manner, the Democrats were successful in taking out the money that would have implemented the fifth and last BRAC round.

BRAC is the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In this BRAC round, we would have saved $20 billion by 2012, but by delaying it a year, the costs are going to be far greater. There is $5.7 billion to implement BRAC, and the Democrats took out effectively $4.1 billion and then put $1 billion back--$3.1 billion out. That means we cannot implement these BRAC policies and actually effect the savings.

The problem I have with this is they say this is going to come out of the emergency supplemental, we will get it all taken out of that. That means it comes out of money that otherwise would have gone to our fighting troops in Iraq. This is not what I want to happen. Right now, we are underfunded over there. We have great needs in armored vehicles, operating costs, and training costs for Iraqi security forces, and this translates into American lives.

To have $3.1 billion come out of this BRAC process to me is unconscionable when we are at war. This means the units that were planning to return stateside will have to remain abroad. It means the temporary and old housing will continue to be used, further increasing the upkeep in costs. And it means it is going to cost a lot more to implement it. Each week that goes by, each time it is delayed, it is going to cost additional money.

Here is the other problem we have, if we stop and think. All the communities that are surrounding our various military establishments have participated in the BRAC process and have said: If you will do this and expand this base, we will put in free housing, we will do health care for the children of our military people. All these very generous contributions which are made by the private sector very likely will not even be made.

It is not too late to change our mind. I just wish I could reach a number of people here to convince the leadership, such as my good friend from North Dakota. I know he is interested in accommodating the BRAC needs. If we could just get this one amendment in to allow us to do the military construction and to pull that out of the continuing resolution, it would be appreciated very much by our troops who are fighting a very difficult battle.

I will make my one last appeal. We cannot take the $3.1 billion out and adequately support the military operation.

I yield the floor.

Funding For Iraq: Refugees

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a very friendly question?

We had authorized $5.7 billion to be spent this year on the BRAC process and $4.1 billion was taken out, with $1 billion put back. My question to you is: Can we have that made up without taking it out of a supplemental that would be pulling it out of other wartime activities? I would say that probably would work. That is my concern.

Mr. President, let me inquire as to how much time is left open from the 10 minutes of the Senator of Texas?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those 5 minutes be divided between myself and Senator Chambliss.

And that at the conclusion of the unanimous consent request wherein the last speaker, it is my understanding, is the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I have been watching this debate as it has taken place. I am disappointed that procedurally we dropped the ball. We were hoping to be able to speak all afternoon on probably the most immediate crisis we are facing in terms of the budget; that is, the BRAC process.

Let me share a couple of ideas as to what this is all about. A lot of people are not all that familiar with the process we are talking about. The BRAC process is the Base Closure Realignment Commission. It was brought to our attention and first voted on by a Congressman from Texas, Dick Armey. Prior to that time, it appeared that all of our military establishments that were in the United States had been looked at as economic bases. Consequently, it is very difficult to close down some that are either not efficient or not needed for defending the country.

It was the idea of Congressman Armey to put together a system to take politics out of the base-closure system and to allow some criteria to be put forth and have a base-closure commission make recommendations and then take those recommendations and put them into effect. The bottom line would be they may find, in my State of Oklahoma, that one of our installations should be closed or should be realigned and part of it moved somewhere else. If that is the case, we would have to vote on the overall picture. You could not pick or choose. That way, as nearly as you can take politics out of a procedure on this Senate floor, I believe they successfully did that.

We had the first BRAC round back in 1988. We have had four since then. The last one is the one we are talking about now.

I have to say that when we came to this fifth BRAC closure vote as to whether we are going to allow the Commission to reconvene and make determinations as to priorities, I voted against it. I led the opposition. In fact, we only lost it by two votes. We have had a BRAC round, after all.

I made a statement from this Senate floor, from this podium, that whatever recommendations they came up with on this independent, nonpartisan BRAC Commission, I would not object to, and that is exactly what has happened.

The problem we are facing--and I can remember so well saying in the Senate before this last round was decided upon, I said it may be that we will save $20 billion over a period of time with another BRAC round. We don't know that for sure, but there is one thing we do know; that is, it is going to cost us a lot of money in the next 3 or 4 years, right when we are going to need the funding for our military.

We went through the 1990s downgrading and downsizing the military. I remember this euphoric attitude that many people had--the Cold War is over, and we no longer need a military. Consequently, the attention was not given to the military.

I have a chart I have not used for quite a while. This is during the Clinton administration, from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2001. If we take the black line, that shows that if we merely kept the budget we had for the military from fiscal year 1993 and added nothing but inflation, the black line would represent the amount of the budget and what it would have been at the end of that period of time. The red line represents what the President's budget--it was President Clinton at that time and what he was requesting. You can see the huge difference in there, about a $412 billion difference.

Congress, in its wisdom, increased the President's budget insofar as military spending is concerned to this line right here. Nonetheless, over that period of time, while we did bring it up a little bit, it still was $313 billion below what a static budget would have been from that year, in bringing that year forward.

That is the problem we are facing in the 1990s, the late 1990s. I remember so many times coming to the Senate and saying that we will rue the day we downgraded the military. And we did. We went down to about 60 percent of the force strength, did away with and slowed down a lot of our military modernization programs.

I remember watching other countries producing better equipment, so when we send our young people out to do battle, they don't have the kind of equipment someone else might have. A good example would be our non-line-of-sight cannon, artillery piece. The best piece we have today is the Paladin. That is World War II technology where you have to swab the breach after every shot--something that is totally unacceptable. There are five countries, including South Africa, that make a better cannon than we have. We are going to remedy that now, and we have future combat systems where we will start modernizing.

We also slipped behind in the Air Force. I remember when General Jumper at that time came to the Senate, in 1998, and he said that now the Russians are making the Su series, and he referred to the Su-35 and he said it was better than any strike vehicle we have, our F-15s and F- 16s. Now we have an F-22 that will do a better job. This is what happened to us in the 1990s.

Now we come to the BRAC process. We had an opportunity to save $20 billion. But to do that, we have to build installations in different areas, divest ourselves of other installations. That is where we are today.

As has been said by several speakers in the Senate, we are in a position now going into a continuing resolution, that it would tie us to the 2006 budget. If this happens, the BRAC funding that is necessary to implement the changes to accommodate our fighting troops over there, in their rotations coming back home--all of these things that are taking place are things that can't be taking place now because we are $3 billion short.

My next chart shows we are scraping just to fund the BRAC process. The money the military needs to pursue the BRAC round in fiscal year 2007 is $5.6 billion. You can see that on the chart. That is the amount the President requested. That is also the amount in our authorization bill, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. Those on the Senate Committee on Armed Services authorized this $5.6 billion. The Senate appropriators thought they could shave a little bit off, so they cut from that $.4 billion. That brings it down to $5.2 billion.

Because there is no appropriated amount, the BRAC was funded at the fiscal year 2006 level, which is $1.6 billion--far lower than what is required to even start the process of this latest BRAC round. Under the continuing resolution now being considered, the funding was increased by $1 billion, which puts us at a total of $2.5 billion less what the military is going to have to have. That means it is a $3.1 billion shortfall. I know it is confusing, so we put it on a chart so we can clearly understand it. That is what is necessary to carry out those requirements we had in the BRAC round.

We did get $1 billion. Let me tell Members where that came from. The Democrats scraped and squeezed all the unfunded amounts that were needed to be funded by the CR. They were able to get an extra $13 billion to fund their own priorities. We talked about those priorities, many of them social programs, many of them programs I would support, some programs I would oppose. To me, they were not in the league of necessity that we have in our military construction in carrying out and implementing BRAC.

The chart shows the amount of money, the $13 billion, and where this money went. If you go around the chart, you see Veterans' Administration, $4.5 billion--we supported that; defense health, $1.4 billion; State and Foreign Ops--this is HIV/AIDS, which has been talked about in the Senate--that is $1.25 billion; law enforcement, $1.35 billion--quite frankly, I am not sure what that is referring to; pay raise for Federal workers, $1 billion; Labor-HHS, Head Start, AIDS, Social Security, and so forth, Pell grants, that is $2.3 billion; Interior Department, $200 million. Finally, after everyone else is taken care of, everyone else has been funded, there is $1 billion left over to put toward BRAC. The need was $4.1 billion. It brings it down to the $3.1 billion. So the need is still there. That is how we got where we are today.

What this Senate needs to do is to evaluate and establish priorities as to

what is really significant. What do we need to add? We are at war. It is inconceivable to me, when we come along with a BRAC process that applies housing and other needs for our troops who are rotating back and forth, that we are not able to do that.

One of the concerns I have that I have not talked about in the Senate is the problems we have in the communities. One of the reasons my State of Oklahoma has always, throughout all BRAC processes, all five of them, benefited--and I am bragging a little bit here, and I know other States do a good job--Oklahoma has always done an excellent job on community support. In our five major military installations, we have the communities building hospitals, doing child health care, helping with roads, donating land. For that reason, we have always done a very good job of that in my State. A lot of people were concerned when the BRAC processes took place; that is something which has actually been a benefit to my State. However, in this case, there isn't a State that isn't involved either in pluses or minuses, but overall it is a way to take care of those kids when they come back, when they rotate through.

We have two things that are happening right now. We are trying to rotate our troops who were in battle, and the second thing is, we are trying to establish a program where, instead of sending some of our people overseas for 3 and 4 years with their families, to bring them back and let them rotate.

With that, I am going to yield the floor. It is my intention to come back. I have quite a few more things to talk about.

Will the Senator yield?

The point I was trying to make in terms of community support, many communities in Georgia and Oklahoma have made commitments predicated on this next BRAC round coming forward. I ask the question, Aren't you a little concerned how to face the communities if we renege on what the Government's portion is?

Reserving the right to object, I further ask unanimous consent that after the completion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, and after one other Democrat, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I notice there are no other Members here, so I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada expressed my feelings in a much more articulate way than I ever could, and one of the last things he said is: Mistakes have been made in this war. I would suggest mistakes have been made in every war. Winston Churchill once said:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and

easy. Always remember, however sure you are that you could

easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man

did not think he also had a chance to win.

This statement was made many years ago, but it is relevant today. Today, we face an enemy who is determined, adaptive, and willing to go to any means of terror and violence to win. He cannot be negotiated with, and he will not be satisfied until the entire world is brought under his dreadful ideology.

We have seen this kind before. We saw it with Stalin, with Pol Pot, and with Hitler, but never before has an enemy metastasized this way. There is no centralized headquarters we can bomb, no one leader we can eliminate. We will continue to strike terrorism where it appears and track down its leaders but know this will not end the conflict. Victory will come the way it always has. We will destroy the enemy's belief he can win.

Any resolution against the President's plan does two things: It tells the enemy, No. 1, that they have been successful; and, No. 2, it gives them patience to wait us out. They are a very patient people. We have already done ourselves damage by bringing the issue to the public eye. Do you believe they do not watch our news; that they are not scouring our media for any hope or any chink in our resolve? Don't be so naive. Their very survival depends on it. This is the only way they can hope to win. If we cannot destroy their will, we will destroy them.

This sounds brutal and not very reconciling, but I intend it that way. There is a clear choice and no other option. If we do not fight them in Iraq, we will be fighting them in Philadelphia, in Pittsburgh, in Kansas City, in Los Angeles, and in Seattle. We will be playing defensive until, once again, just as occurred after 9/11, our resolve hardens and we summon up the courage to destroy the enemy. And we must because the alternative is what happened to Rome: Factions of internal strife kept the great power tied up for so long that it lost its strength, its will, and its resolve. The period following was known as the Dark Ages, and this is indeed what al-Qaida seeks.

Our country represents the light of freedom and democracy. Yet I fear we have begun a terrible introspective and downward cycle. Our resolve lasts for a few months, maybe a year, but all it takes is enough time and then we break. Our enemy knows this. We can look to our mission in Somalia in 1933, at our reaction to the bombings in Lebanon at the Khobar Towers and in Vietnam. I am not saying we necessarily should have stayed in Vietnam, but I am saying we must recognize that while this introspection guarantees our freedom, it is also our greatest weakness.

There have been no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. There have been attempts, and we know we have thwarted over 10 operations. However, we also know these were relatively underdeveloped and small in scale. I wish to ask a dark question: Why has al-Qaida not struck again? Because they cannot? We have stepped up our security, but they have shown their destructive creativity in the past. Because they are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps. But I would suggest another option. What if they have chosen not to. What if they have realized the strategy of restraint, pricking us just enough to launch ourselves at them, and then they fade back. We expend ourselves attacking new enemies, building countries, and undermining each other. Politics and personal reputations create an impetus of their own.

We should debate. That is exactly what the Senate body is intended to do. But do not undermine. The new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, has stated that a resolution of disapproval would hurt his efforts. This is the new guy. Let us keep in mind that we voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus to take over that very difficult job. When asked by Senator Lieberman about the effect a resolution of disapproval would have on our troops and our enemies, General Petraeus stated that:

This is a test of will at the end of the day. A commander

in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel

there is no hope.

That is what General Petraeus said. He went on to say he does need more troops and he believes the new plan can work.

I recognize there have been mistakes made in Iraq, as we have talked about. The President has also recognized this.

Everyone has recognized this, and the President has taken full responsibility for it. Yet we still find ourselves in a difficult situation, with hard decisions to be made about the best way ahead. These decisions affect many lives, both our soldiers in harm's way and the American people they are pledged to protect. I think we all agree it would be disastrous to leave Iraq precipitously. If we do, we know we can expect increased levels of violence, the spread of extremist ideology, and Iraq itself collapsing into anarchy.

A personal friend of mine, who actually was a commander at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, General Maples, stated that:

Continued Coalition presence is the primary counter to a

breakdown in central authority. Such a breakdown would have

grave consequences for the people of Iraq, stability in the

region, and the U.S. strategic interest.

John Negroponte and the CIA Director, General Hayden agree

with that, as does General Petraeus. So it is not too late to

avoid this. I don't think it is time to start cutting our

losses and just hope it goes away. We have heard the

President ask for our support.

Let me share, on a personal note, that I have had the occasion to be in Iraq more than any other Member of either the House or the Senate, some 12 times now, and the first thing I do is talk to the troops. The troops come up to me, and the first question they ask is: Why is it the media doesn't like us? Why is it they are constantly undermining our efforts here? Why is it the American people don't understand or appreciate what we are doing? I say, yes, the American people do, but a lot of the politicians don't act that way.

I have been very much concerned about this, and I believe any resolution, and we are talking about five or six resolutions now, any resolution that is a resolution of retreat would be a resolution of surrender.

I think it is ludicrous for any Member to say I support the troops but I don't support their mission. You try to explain that to them. I talked to the troops in Fallujah. In all this discussion about, do we need to be training the Iraqis to be fighting their own war--sure we do. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing that since we arrived on the scene in Iraq, and they are very proud and they are taking the frontal positions right now. The Iraqis are doing a good job. Their training has been good. Their equipment is not good, but it is getting better, it is improving.

I stood there at the last election in Fallujah when our marines were there and I talked, through an interpreter, to the Iraqi security forces, and they said they are very proud. We are going to be in a position--please stay with us until we can hold our own here, and that won't be too long. I know that is true. I know they have come up with the numbers, now, that would be equal to about 10 divisions. I believe this can happen.

This is very serious. Politics has crept into this thing. But any support of a resolution of surrender not only is undermining our troops and saying to our troops: We don't support you, but also saying to the loved ones of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice that they have died in vain. We can't let that happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, recent events in Somalia have opened a unique window of opportunity. The Islamic Courts have been militarily defeated. However, the Ethiopian troops that are currently maintaining order have stated that they have no intention of remaining. There are reports of

troop withdrawals back to the Ethiopian border. Without outside support I fear that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and Somalia as a whole will be swept back into the cycle of violence and chaos that has defined the country for the past 15 years.

I believe that the United States can make great progress in securing the Horn of Africa by what actions we take right now. First and foremost is security. Until the government troops can offer sustainable stability, we need to assist them. This solution need not include U.S. troops; I am aware of negotiations for the deployment of 8,000 troops from other African countries, including a force of about 1,000 from Uganda. Any efforts in this direction should be greatly encouraged.

The United States has no formal representative to the Somali Republic. The Transitional Federal Government has requested creating such a position.

We need to offer assistance and aid at this most crucial juncture. At an appropriate time the U.S. should encourage public and private investment, possibly through a trade mission. Other areas where help is greatly needed include security training, basic sanitation, water purification, and tax collection.

Perhaps most importantly, we should assist in any steps that can be taken to establish a national unity government. This will require groups from all sides of the spectrum getting together and working out serious solutions.

The United States can make great progress in securing the Horn of Africa by what actions we take right now. I am submitting a resolution expressing the following: support for the Transitional Federal Government; recognize Ethiopia, particularly Prime Minister Meles, and Kenya for the noble efforts aimed toward pursuing peace in Somalia and support for the United States in the War on Terror; and the U.S. should support and push efforts for serious multi-party talks aimed at establishing a national unity government.

There are a number of measures that should be taken at an appropriate time by the United States to promote stability. With the assistance of the U.S., the TFG will be better equipped to face the challenges of restoring peace to this war-torn country.

While I understand that the situation is volatile and some forms of assistance may not be immediately appropriate, I believe it is necessary to raise awareness that there are definite ways that we can affect progress. Please join me in supporting Somalia and bringing peace to this war-torn region.